When I used Tri-X a lot, it was using it the classic zone system way explained in "The Negative". For me, the 320 variety ended up being shot at EI 200 in D-76 1:1 at 72F (seemed to be my average water temperature at the time of the testing, so I stuck with it) in both 4x5 and 120/220. I used a time-temp chart if the water was not 72F. I used the combo for everything black and white, pretty much, except sometimes I used FP4 when I wanted its different contrast and color response characteristics. (Strangely enough, it also tested as an EI 200 film for me, so Tri-X had no real speed advantage - just a malleability advantage and less contrast.) For Tri-X 400, it was in 135 format, so I would be hand held 99.9% of the time, often without a meter, and often with an incident meter rather than a spot meter. Thus, I used EIs 125, 250, 500, 1000, etc. to conveniently match shutter speeds (or 100, 200, 500, 1000 for the Leica or similar cameras with the old shutter speeds). I considered 250 normal for a normal contrast situation. I would rerate and alter development depending on contrast, though it was never tested in a detailed manner like with the 320 film. This was also in D-76 1:1 used at ambient temperature.

Then I started messing around with HC-110 and HP5. My school had HC-110 for free, and my box of photo paper had come with three rolls of HP5. I found HP5 a better film for most of my pix, though Tri-X certainly has its unique look that is great for some things. Tri-X opens up the shadows and lightens plants and skies slightly more than HP5. So, I ended up retesting HP5, FP4, Pan F, and Delta 3200, all in Ilfotec HC, and that is where I have been for a few years now. I still shoot Tri-X when I want a 220 b/w film or when I want that Tri-X look. I use D-76 and all my times from before, but do a quick combined EI/normal development test for every new batch that I get. After everything, I highly prefer the HC to D-76. It is extremely convenient (though D-76 is a bit cheaper if used to its full capacity - but I used it diluted one shot), and most of all, more consistent and versatile than D-76. One I tested everything with it, I got almost no variation batch to batch, and also got better results with my litho film. It is ever so slightly more contrasty in the highlights than D-76, and this affect the midtones as well. I usually like this, but if ever I don't want it, all I have to do is dilute the developer so I have more fine control during development. D-76 can do anything and do it well, but I prefer HC as an all around developer.

Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-25-2009 at 05:10 PM. Click to view previous post history.

2F/2F

"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

I get better negs when I rate Tri-X at 200 vs 400 with D-76 1:1 or 250 with XTOL 1:1. with Ilford's agitation recommendations. For the few times I use Rodinal I rate the film at 160. Rodinal is slower than D-76 and can sag the midtones.

Derating Tri-X moves the toe closer to the strait line slope and opens up the shadows.

I have just run some tests again (getting back into film for some nourishment) - Tri X rated at 400 in Xtol 1:1 developed for 9 mins and 15 seconds is giving a good result. I used to get up to a stop extra speed out of this combination, but 400 will do seeing it's giving a nice tonal range.